^right. I have gone through the recheck, then an ultrasound, routine. Not fun.
Many of the “cancers” found by mammograms are slow-growing, would never have done harm, in situ types that lead to treatments and fears. They also skew the statistics, so that at the same time five-year-survival rates are up, mortality rates don’t change much. There’s just more lead time.
It’s clear to me that the curable ones are curable even if not found when tiny, and the incurable ones are not, even when found early.
We need to put more research into why the rates have increased (hint: environment).
The best prevention is prevention, not early detection.
I agree with this. There are many subtypes of BC and the aggressiveness of your tumor is more important to survival than the size it was when found. What really skews the statistics is that they are based on “5 year survival.” Most who die of the disease live longer than 5 years; it’s the next few years that would really tell the story.
The problem with “prevention” is that there really is no way to prevent this disease that we know of. Sure, there are ways to mitigate the risk, at least hypothetically, but it’s just a statistical game. You can exercise, be the ideal weight, have no family history, never smoke, drink very little, eat an organic, plant-based diet and still get an aggressive breast cancer. When they come up with an effective vaccine, I’ll get on the “prevention” bandwagon. That would be a game-changer. That, and a true cure for metastatic disease.
Five year survival rates are just so bogus for comparing two systems. Think of it:
Country A, with a big push for early detection: Tumor starts growing in year 2010, detected by screening in 2013, person dies of cancer in 2020.
Country B: Tumor starts growing in 2010, detecting in 2016, person dies of cancer in 2020.
Country A has a perfect five year survival rate, because this type of cancer is discovered seven years before it kills people. Country B has a zero five year survival rate, because the cancer is discovered four years before it kills.
Country A’s system is better than Country B’s because why, exactly? Early screening by itself is useless.
I think any screening that technology has invented that will detect something life threatening should be used. I will gladly have that mammogram and pap smear every year…my colonoscopy every 5 (they take polyps each time!). I’ve gone for the heartscan for $49 at the hospital. If it will save my life, I’m in!
How often? Should I have a mammogram every month, a Pap smear every week, an ECG before breakfast? What if the screening test detects a life-threatening condition we can’t treat? What if the condition is life-threatening, but I wouldn’t die from it for 25 years? What if the screening test costs a million dollars, and detects a deadly condition that one in ten million people have?
I have very mixed feelings about this issue. I don’t think there is a simple solution. For those who want to screen once a year, they should be able to do this. For those who don’t want to screen much, they shouldn’t.
Question - why are mammograms used instead of ultrasounds? When I had lumpiness in my breast (granted, the doctor really didn’t think it would be cancer, but wanted to be on the safe side), she sent me for an ultrasound, not a mammogram (I am in my 20’s).
I know very little about mammograms and am genuinely curious.
Ultra-sound cannot be used as a general screening test as it cannot image the whole breast at once. It is used for diagnostic purposes on a “spot.” Also ultra sound is used to further define the consistency of the lump or spot. Unlike a mammogram, ultra-sound can determine if a lump is solid or fluid filled. Fluid filled areas are usually if not always benign.
When I mentioned prevention, it is in the context of looking for what in our environment might be causing the increase, so not so much individual prevention measures, but societal. The toxins in our water, air, food, and soil have been linked to many cancers. More attention to and regulation of those things could prevent many cases.
The problem is that it doesn’t A- just detect things that are life-threatening. It detects a LOT of false-positives and benign things which cause unnecessary stress and treatment. B- it’s not proven that detecting it early actually does anything… other than prolong treatment.
Plenty of things. For example, Medicare doesn’t currently pay for doctors to consult with their patients about advanced directives for health care. That has proven benefits. Or how about nurses or other health care professionals making house calls to people with chronic expensive diseases like diabetes? That would be a good use of money.
But come on. We’re not made of money. Health care in the United States costs almost four trillion dollars a year. We need to figure out how to save money, not waste it on screenings that don’t produce better outcomes.
The Mammography Saves Lives website says that mammography had reduced mortality by 1/3 in women, since 1990.
It says that 1 in 6 breast cancers occur in women aged 40-49.
That of all the years of lives saved by mammograms, 40% are for women in their forties.
That skipping a mammogram every other year would miss up to 30% of cancers.
If these statistics are true, skipping mammograms in the general population might be a good cost saving move, allowing money for other things, but for the significant number of women who are affected, they might disagree, and think their lives are worth it.
The Mammography Saves Lives website is paid for by the American College of Radiologists. Surprise! They say that you should use their services. In other news, realtors say you should hire realtors, lawyers say you should hire lawyers, and cruise companies assure you that the best vacation is a cruise.
I’ll get my information from people without a financial interest in my eventual choice, thanks.
I’d be interested to know how the Mammography Saves Lives website is able to document that mammography has actually reduced mortality by 1/3. That’s a pretty bold statement.
First, we’d need to see that BC mortality has, in fact, decreased since 1990. I’ve never seen those statistics. Then we’d have to have proof that mammography was the reason for the decrease in deaths. I think that would be very tough, if not impossible, to prove.